EHRC Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations has been laid - here is the Code itself

It's not intended to refer to public toilets in general. It's intended to refer to places where a very masculine presenting woman would genuinely affect the service provision, for example in a women's rape counselling session (or the toilets provided at a venue where that service is provided) where some people might be triggered by the presence of someone visually very male. Even if they are female.

It might also be proportional to exclude a violent woman, or a drunk woman, because their presence would make the service less effective.

Yes I started a thread about this to see how BBC etc, respond.

Just wait till you see what the GLP has to say!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5532819-bbc-admits-toilets-and-services-are-based-on-biological-se-and-some-other-responses-to-new-guidelines

Good point.

Has the recording of sex on health records been covered?

Finally: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0e2rj3zj02o
https://archive.ph/oT1pj

And where does this leave the register of births, marriages and death? No sex on a birth certificate?

Have just read Sex Matters analysis in full and they are saying the bit about "special category data" is wrong in law! Quote:

Article 9(1) of UK GDPR defines special category data as “personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, or trade union membership, and the processing of genetic data, biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person, data concerning health or data concerning a natural person’s sex life or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.” It does not include sex.

Does this mean another court case is on the horizon?

Well I am gender critical. I do not think you can change sex and I do not think your physical appearance means that you can claim to be the opposite sex. The bearded individuals you speak of are women. This guidance is saying that there are women who cannot use women’s toilets and I am not happy about that. Someone doesn’t need to have long hair and a skirt and no muscles to be a woman that has been the whole point.

Excluding transmen from both women's spaces and men's spaces if they 'pass' was mentioned in the 2025 Supreme Court judgement wasn't it?

The SC judges seem to have realised, as others might not, that a bearded, balding, heavily-muscled individual entering a women’s toilet or changing room might induce anxiety and discomfort. The effects of testosterone are very distinctive, and women will react immediately to what appears at first glance to a male intruder.

Excluding transmen from both women's spaces and men's spaces if they 'pass' was mentioned in the 2025 Supreme Court judgement wasn't it?

Smacks a bit of a less-able student another student's work without really understanding what they are doing

Iwanttoretire kindly posted a link (at 18:25) to the Sex Matters response - their response says that the idea that sex is likely to constitute special category data for the purposes of the DPA is ‘wrong in law’
which is interesting!

Because men are also entitled to privacy and dignity, and women may be alarmed by someone who appears male in a single sex space.

Special category data (from the ico website)

The UK GDPR defines special category data as:

personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin;
personal data revealing political opinions;
personal data revealing religious or philosophical beliefs;
personal data revealing trade union membership;
genetic data;
biometric data (where used for identification purposes);
data concerning health;
data concerning a person’s sex life; and
data concerning a person’s sexual orientation.

This is a bit of a mess. How can it possibly be lawful to exclude trans men from men’s services and from women’s services? Why on earth has that been included?

Schedule 27 of the 2010 Act lists the repeals, which include only limited parts of the 2006 Act:

Equality Act 2006
Section 25.
Section 26.
Section 33.
Section 43.

Part 2.
Section 81
Part 4.
In Section 94(3) “and 41 to 56” and “and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995(c.50)”.
In Schedule 3, paragraphs 6 to 35 and paragraphs 40 to 56.

The EHRC is created and described in ss1-35, most of which stays.

Would that not fall down on protections for beliefs though. It would exclude women of certain religions from using facilities which may be attended by men.

I believe it is not, & that this may be an error.

(not my insight: Trina Budge on x)

The one that made me laugh was about a hypothetical trans woman rejected because they want a man for the job. Aside from the implied lack of GOR for a man, a trans woman IS a man FFS.

But, was sex a sensitive characteristic under GDPR before today's guidance? The guidance can't change the law, so if sex wasn't sensitive before today, it shouldn't be now, just because of the guidance.

And is GDPR governed by the EA anyway? Where does it say in the EA that sex is a sensitive characteristic?

Sorry if I have misunderstood completely.

Yep.

That’s the Equality Act 2010 which rolled up the Race Relations Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act & much else… leaving us with no protection against discrimination on grounds of age, belief, disability, maternity & pregnancy, sex & sexual orientation etc.

That’s the Equality Act which allowed Maya Forstater, Sandie Peggie, the Darlington Nurses, the woman currently suing Manchester City Council & others to bring and win their cases.

The Greens want to remove the protection of sex, Reform wants to remove the lot.

Be careful what you wish for.

The EA covers a lot more than that - it replaced the equal pay act, the race relations act, the disability discrimination act and much other legislation. Without it, it is perfectly legal for an employer to fire a woman simply for being pregnant, or to refuse to hire black or Jewish people.

I don't know what Reform would replace it with either - and neither I suspect do they. But assuming they really mean to repeal it on day one, there would be a long window before new legislation can be brought in during which British citizens have virtually no protection against discrimination on grounds of sex, age, religion, disability, race, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, or gender reassignment.

Yes, that leapt out at me too!

Thousands of words of 'guidance' and they still don't know the difference between sex and gender

Saying “sex” is sensitive under GDPR will be an absolute pain for millions of organisations. Think how many membership forms ask name & sex (or gender) and now they will have to have detailed data protection policies on everything. Crazy.

Very.good.point.